Mr. Child. 
828 DISCUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
SrepHen Cuitp, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—Colonel Chit- 
tenden’s arguments are so evidently based on careful study and years 
of practical experience that they carry great weight, and certainly 
one who has been able to give these matters comparatively little in- 
vestigation should hesitate to combat them. The writer’s interest in them, 
however, is intense, and, if they remain uncontroverted, they will be a 
strong argument for politicians in Washington who are opposed to the 
Appalachian and White Mountain Forest Reserve bills. As a member 
of the Council of the American Civic Association, it was the writer's 
privilege, while in Washington, to use what little influence he had in 
the interests of these bills, the passage of which is believed to be of 
the utmost importance to New England and the South Atlantic States. 
The author takes up the influences of forests upon stream flow, and 
states “the commonly accepted opinion,” “that forests have a beneficial 
influence on stream flow.” He then proceeds to controvert these 
opinions pretty thoroughly. Certainly his arguments are strong and 
most intéresting, and the writer frankly admits that he is entirely 
unable to meet them. As stated, the above-noted opinions are very 
commonly accepted at the present time, and no one is more responsible 
for their common acceptance in the United States than Gifford 
Pinchot, Assoc. Am. Soc. C. E., of the Forestry Bureau, whom the 
author frequently quotes and whose writings and lectures upon this 
subject have been accepted by many, up to the present time, as the 
final word on this subject. The writer, therefore, is very glad to know 
that Mr. Pinchot is to be given an opportunity to reply. , 
One of the author’s statements, with reference to waste in lumber- 
ing operations, certainly appears to be extravagantly put. Comment- 
ing on the improved lumbering methods of the Weyerhauser Timber 
Company, he says: 
“To speak of such timber as being ‘lost’ to the people, ‘wasted,’ and 
its acquisition as a ‘looting of our heritage,’ is as disingenuous as it 
is untrue. Will its lumber cost the consumer a cent more per 
thousand than if it were from a Government reserve? It is a wholly 
gratuitous assumption that our timber is going to be ‘wasted’ unless 
it is placed under Government control.” 
While the writer is in no position to controvert the statements as 
to the progressive methods now being used by the Weyerhauser Timber 
Company, he thinks he is well within the facts in stating that the 
improvements: which this and other progressive lumbering concerns 
have adopted within recent years have been due largely to the cam- 
paign of education waged by Mr. Pinchot, and to the aroused public 
opinion which his work has brought about. It is hard to believe, as 
Colonel Chittenden would intimate, that there have not been in the 
past and are not now, in many sections of the United States, waste- 
ful methods of lumbering; yet the statement quoted would imply 
